Michael Fabricant: The Mayor of the west midlands has cross-party local support in trying to attract the Channel 4 headquarters to the region. Will my right hon. Friend outline in more detail how he thinks—and, more important, when he thinks—Channel 4 will move?

Kerry McCarthy: I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to congratulate Bristol on being designated UNESCO city of film, which is yet another good reason for Channel 4 to choose to relocate there, but does he agree that, wherever it relocates, this is about commissioning and it will be necessary to ensure that there is a regular spread of commissioning services across the country?

John Whittingdale: I, too, congratulate the Government on the progress made in passing the 95% target for coverage of superfast broadband, but what message can my right hon. Friend give to the over 2,000 households in my constituency that are unable to receive 10 megabits per second, and particularly the over 10% of households in the village of Purleigh who cannot even receive 2 megabits per second?

Matt Warman: Back to the app. Too many users of Android phones have been unlucky enough to read the words “Matt Hancock has stopped” when the app crashes. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that, for all the fun we have had over this, it is a genuinely meaningful attempt to get in touch with constituents and that, as the owner of the fastest growing social network in the country, he will continue to press on?

Robert Buckland: FGM is a crime. It is abuse against children and women. The CPS has introduced a series of measures to improve the handling of such cases, including appointing a lead FGM prosecutor in each area and delivering training to police and prosecutors across the country.

Kerry McCarthy: Bristol is recognised as being at the forefront of some of the community involvement in trying to prevent female genital mutilation, but the fact that we have not yet had a single conviction is still a sticking point. What more can the Solicitor General do liaise with the police? Local prosecution services tell me that they are being prevented from taking things further because the police are not bringing cases to them.

Margaret Greenwood: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this urgent question. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.
The news that the chief executive of Motability Operations Group plc took home £1.7 million last year and that the group is sitting on reserves of £2.4 billion has shocked people around the country. Particularly shocked are disabled people, 51,000 of whom, according to Motability’s own figures, lost access to the scheme last year after being reassessed for their personal independence payment. More than 3,000 were reinstated on appeal, but many lost their car in the meantime.
From Carillion to Motability, excessive executive pay is completely out of hand. With Motability Operations Ltd paid about £2 billion a year directly by the Department for Work and Pensions on behalf of disabled people in receipt of social security support, there are serious questions for the Secretary of State to answer. When did she or her officials last meet with either Motability or Motability Operations Group? The National Council for Voluntary Organisations’ “Report of the Inquiry into Charity Senior Executive Pay and Guidance for Trustees on Setting Remuneration”, published in April 2014, says that charities should include highest earners in their accounts, regardless of whether they work for a subsidiary company. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Motability Operations Group is sitting on a surplus of £2.4 billion. That is a staggering amount given its VAT exemption from the Treasury, which means that it does not compete on a level playing field.
When the National Audit Office last examined Motability in detail in 1996, it found that the then £61 million reserves
“exceeded the necessary margin of safety”.
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the current necessary margin of safety, and what assessment has she made of the £200 million annual underspend that has allowed such a large surplus to accumulate? Given that the funding of Motability effectively comes from the taxpayer via social security payments, what assessment has she made of value for money for disabled people who rely on their cars for independence? Finally, value for money for taxpayers is not currently one of the criteria for Motability’s remuneration committee. Does the Secretary of State believe it should be?

Harriett Baldwin: I am very happy to commit to following up on that with the hon. Gentleman in writing. As he will appreciate, this was carefully discussed by those at our end and, balancing the issues concerned in this particular case, the Secretary of State decided not to intervene on the matter.

Helen Goodman: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for so eloquently and passionately putting the case against this shameful piece of legislation, which turns same-sex couples into second-class citizens just a year after they had won their equality through the courts.
Following a year in which Australia and Chile have joined the march towards marriage equality, this legislation is a significant step backwards. For that to happen anywhere in the world would be shameful, but for it to happen in a British territory—with the legislation signed by a British Governor, and permitted by a British Foreign Secretary—makes us complicit in something that this House has repeatedly voted against.
The Government say they are disappointed, that there is a difficult balancing act to be made between the will of Bermuda’s Parliament and the views of the British Government and that this legislation tries to bridge the gap between the two. That is not really the case: the legislation is in conflict with Bermuda’s own constitution and Human Rights Act. When it comes to the rights of British citizens, there should be no such thing as a balancing act.
On the powers of the Governor to veto this legislation, the Foreign Office states that,
“British Ministers expect the Governor to observe international obligations and protect key values.”
The Minister has just said that the law should be in line with the constitution. How does the Governor’s decision to sign this legislation square with that expectation of protecting key values? Surely LGBT equality is a key value. How is it right for the Governor to sign legislation that overturns the independent decision of the judiciary, conflicts with the constitution, and enshrines not integrity but rank inequality into Bermuda’s administration of justice?

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: How do we expect to be leaders of the world on this issue, and how do we expect to raise this issue seriously in the Commonwealth as the Minister suggests, if they can all turn around and say, “Well, in the territories you sanction it. In Northern Ireland you sanction it.” We are making our country a laughing stock in the international human rights field. Will we be able to think again? Will we put pressure on all our territories to introduce same-sex marriage? Will we consider the self-determination—the phrase the Minister uses—of LGBT people in our territories and stop going on about the self-determination of some usually rich elected politicians, far up in their ivory towers in their islands, who do not represent a lot of the minorities on their islands who we need to stand up for today?

Derek Twigg: My constituent Helen Hill’s husband was murdered in 2002, and his killer was released after 10 years. Helen has recently been told that his supervision may stop four years on from his release and that she has started an online petition calling for  the supervision of murderers to be kept in place in for life. May we have an urgent debate on the supervision of murderers?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend will be aware that there was a debate yesterday on local government funding, and there are regular opportunities to raise matters of  local government in the House. If he feels that a further debate is important, I encourage him to seek a Backbench Business debate?

Alan Brown: My constituent, Christine Lilley of Kilmarnock, has received confirmation from the DWP that from now on it will cover her mortgage interest as a loan against her property. May we have a debate about the impact of this policy, the stress it is causing and the utter madness that could see people feeling forced to sell their homes and claiming more money on housing benefit than their mortgage interest relief would cost the Government?

Valerie Vaz: I thank| the Leader of the House for her statement and for her leadership of the group. We started this task on 14 November and worked on it until 29 January, and it felt like a long time. All credit must go to the staff, who heard our discussions and made sense of our ramblings, queries and questions. The result is this document, which I think makes some sense. When the new scheme is developed, it will cover 15,000 people working across the estate. It will hopefully also form part of any contracts on building programmes. There is still to be consultation with House staff, as Ken Gall, the president of the trade union side, has indicated, but the main scheme will cover a new behaviour code.
Paragraph 28 refers to other processes that individuals may choose, such as a process associated with their employment or the political party in question. The scheme will reserve the right not to investigate incidents  investigated elsewhere. Paragraph 31 provides that there will be support services, emotional guidance and other guidance, including advice on processes. Paragraph 32 outlines the confidentiality arrangements.
The informal and formal stages of the new sexual harassment policy and procedure are outlined in paragraphs 50 to 61, in chapter 3. Complaints handled by a specialist trained sexual health advisor are outlined in paragraph 54. There will be a separate process for bullying and harassment policy procedures, which is outlined in paragraphs 62 to 75, in chapter 4. The HR advice service that is to be up and running for the staff of MPs and peers will be procured as discussed in paragraph 74. There will also be cultural change training, as outlined in paragraph 79, because some people may not know what unacceptable or acceptable behaviour is. Chapter 7 outlines possible sanctions, and paragraph 92 sets out the timeframe in which the work will proceed. The estimate for the completion of all workstreams is roughly three months.
Members should note that staff supporting the working group have had to deal with their own work as well as this unusual way of working. I am pleased that a formal secretariat will be set up that is dedicated solely to implementing the recommendations, so staff do not have to cover their other posts and this one.
Dr Helen Mott was a gracious and knowledgeable adviser to the working group. The report says that any legal advice that is requested will be from a senior lawyer, but I would suggest that it should be at QC level. The expertise of ACAS should also be accessed. Our survey response showed a 17% return—lower than expected. However, further work may usefully consider ongoing surveys to test the robustness of the procedures.
The Leader of the Opposition has read the whole report and he, too, passes on his thanks to the staff for their hard work.
This is a much better report than the draft that was available before Christmas, as the Leader of the House has kindly acknowledged previously. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who is in her place, was keen to have flowcharts so that we could work out the procedure. There is a reference to that, and they may be forthcoming later. In the report before Christmas, there was no reference to the independent sexual harassment adviser, and that could have been lost. There is a body of work to be done, and I am grateful to the House authorities for ensuring that this work will continue. I know that it will be in capable hands.
Everyone in Parliament must be able to work together co-operatively, respecting the expertise of the House and balancing our responsibilities as elected representatives in a safe, secure and constructive workplace so that everyone, including our constituents and the staff of this House, can benefit from working for the common good in this extraordinary place.

Andrea Leadsom: I continue to be grateful to the hon. Lady and to her colleague, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for their contribution to the formulation of what I think will be a game changer for Parliament. They have both been stalwarts, as have all the other members of the working group. It has been an extraordinary and very concentrated piece of work, and I think we can all be proud of it.
I pay tribute to the staff of the House and of the Cabinet Office, who, as the hon. Member for Walsall South says, really gave of their time, with their day job still to be done. I would love to name them all, but I think they know who they are. They have done a fantastic job. I also pay tribute to my own team who support me in the Leader of the House’s office. It is a small but rather excellent team. They are all seated in the Box, so I shall not look at them and embarrass them, but they have done a really superb job.

Andrea Leadsom: Training was another area on which the working group had lengthy discussions. I can see my friends on the working group inwardly groaning—“Not training again.” We discussed the need for extensive training to be made available. Of course, we were not just considering issues around complaints about sexual harassment and bullying. We were also dealing with issues raised by staff members about how to properly recruit someone, how to properly discipline someone, how to deal with conflict in the workplace and how to deal with complications between staff of different teams and people who come into contact with one another who do not necessarily have an employment relationship at all. We looked at many different areas.
There will be a comprehensive package of training on areas such as consent, unconscious bias and how to properly recruit, retain and discipline members of staff. Equally, there will be sanctions. Voluntary training will be made available, and there will be mandatory training from after the next general election. There will also be compulsory training by way of lower level sanctions that can be imposed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on Members of the House.

Harriet Harman: I join other hon. Members in commending the work of the Leader of the House and thank her for the way she has gone about it. Her approach has been very serious and committed but also inclusive, involving—right at the heart of the process and on an equal footing—the shadow Leader of the House and the shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who have been able to consult and involve us in the process.
The right hon. Lady’s working group has been able to ripple the discussion widely. Of course, we all have an interest in ensuring that grotesque abuses do not happen in this House, that it is a safe and decent place to work and that any wrongdoing is called to account.
People have talked about the balance between a fair system for the complainant and a fair system for the person who is complained about. Obviously that is right. The media spotlight can be very harsh indeed on a Member of Parliament just on the basis of an accusation made, but it can also be very harsh on a complainant, and we have to bear that in mind. Timeliness is very important for an hon. Member against whom a complaint has been made, but it is also important for someone who has complained. I know that that has been at the forefront of the working group’s mind.
I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Lady has said this is a work in progress. She has established a response and a system and set up some processes, but it is very important indeed that she stays on the case, with colleagues across the House, to ensure that this actually works. I thank her for her work.

Stephen Barclay: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the independent review of Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust, which was conducted for NHS Improvement by Dr Bill Kirkup and published today.
What happened to patients of Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust is, before anything else, a terrible personal tragedy for all families involved, and the report also makes clear the devastating impact on many frontline staff. On behalf of the Government I apologise to them, and I know that the whole House will want to extend our sympathies to every one of them.
As Mr Speaker correctly identified, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). The people of Merseyside know only too well the cost of attempting to silence the victims and campaigners for those seeking justice. As the report makes clear, her personal commitment to get to the truth on behalf of the victims of Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust, her personal courage in asking difficult questions of those in senior positions within the NHS, and the persistence and precision of her search for accountability, are all vindicated today. We in this House, and across the wider health and social care services, owe her a debt. I also thank Dr Kirkup and his team for this excellent report. As with his report on Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, it is a clear, forensic, and at times devastating account of failures in the care of Liverpool Community Trust by its management, its board, and its regulators.
The report covers the period from the trust’s formation in November 2010 to December 2014, and it describes an organisation that was, “dysfunctional from the outset”. The consequences of that for patient care were in some cases appalling, and the report details a number of incidents of patient harm including pressure sores, falls leading to fractured hips, and five “never events” in the dental service—an incredibly high number for one organisation.
The failings of the organisation were perhaps most starkly apparent in the services provided at Liverpool Prison, where the trust failed to properly risk-assess patients, including for nutrition and hydration, and it did not effectively manage patients at high risk of suicide. The review also identified serious failings in medicine management at the prison. There are many more examples of poor care and its impact on both patients and staff in the report, but what compounds the shock is the lack of insight into those failings displayed by the organisation at the time. This was the very opposite of a culture of learning, with incidents under-reported or played down, warning signals ignored, and other priorities allowed to take the place of patient safety and care for the vulnerable.
We have seen this sort of moral drift before, most obviously at Mid Staffordshire and Morecambe Bay. As with Mid Staffordshire, the management at Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust put far too much emphasis on achieving foundation trust status. The review states that,
“the trust undertook an aggressive cost improvement plan, targeting a £30 million reduction over five years. This represented a cut in resources of approximately 22%. We were surprised that such an ambitious financial reduction was not scrutinised more closely—by both commissioners and regulators.”
There is a direct line from the decision to pursue foundation trust status in that reckless manner to the harm experienced by patients. Indeed, an earlier report by solicitors Capsticks reported in March 2016 that the interim chief executive who took over from Bernie Cuthel found in her first week that
“there was an underspending by £3 million on district nursing. These teams were devastated because they weren’t allowed to recruit, some of them down to 50%”.
This is a district nursing service in which Dr Kirkup reports that patients were experiencing severe pressure sores, up to what is clinically called grade 3. That was accompanied by many of the hallmarks of an organisation that has lost sight of its purpose. As Dr Kirkup states,
“the evidence that we heard and saw amply confirmed the existence of a bullying culture within the Trust, focused almost entirely on achieving Foundation Trust status. Inadequate staffing levels, poor staff morale and appalling HR practice went unheeded. This was the end result of inexperienced leadership that was not capable of rising to the challenges presented by the Trust.”
Following the Mid Staffordshire report, Dr Kirkup recognises that steps have been taken to introduce independent, clinically-led inspection by the Care Quality Commission. The Government have also introduced the special measures regime within NHS Improvement. Alongside this, we have put in place a number of measures to create a wider culture of learning and improvement. The Secretary of State has offered a great deal of personal leadership in helping to create this culture, including the establishment of an independent chief inspector for hospitals, whom I met yesterday and spoke with again this morning, and the recent introduction of measures to support trusts to learn from deaths and to improve patient safety.
I am sure I am not alone in finding it astonishing that Dr Kirkup found there was a
“small minority of individuals who refused to co-operate”
with the review. I wholeheartedly agree with his view that
“it remains the duty of all NHS staff to assist as fully as they are able with investigations and reviews that are directed toward improving future services”.
All but one of the board of the Liverpool trust shirked their legal and moral responsibility to be candid about the organisation they governed. In large, complex organisations, responsibility and accountability are always distributed to some degree. It is the case that the higher up in an organisation someone is, the greater their degree of responsibility. In this case those individuals were Bernie Cuthel as chief executive and Frances Molloy as chair. It is clear from reading the report that they each must take a significant share of the responsibility for these failures.
Hon. Members will, I am sure, have noted the conclusion to the clinical governance section of the report, which highlights the responsibility of the former chief executive of the trust for the system of clinical governance and its failures. It would appear from the report that while the former chief executive, Ms Cuthel, is now able to see  that there were failures in clinical governance, she does not have as strong a sense of her own responsibility as one might expect. I understand that she is no longer employed in the NHS in England, but she does continue to hold a role working with the NHS in Wales.
In response to this report, the Government intend to take a number of actions. First, the Government accept the recommendations in full. While this was a report commissioned by NHS Improvement, I will write to all the organisations named in the recommendations set out at section six of the report, asking them to  confirm what steps they will take to implement the recommendations, or to set out their reasons for not doing so. I will ensure copies of that response are shared with the Health Committee.
Secondly, one recommendation is specifically for the Department of Health and Social Care, as set out in paragraph 6.5 on page 64. This relates to a review of CQC’s fit and proper person test. I intend to discuss the terms of that review with the hon. Member for West Lancashire and will appoint someone to undertake that review within the coming days. I believe that review will need to address the operation and purpose of the fit and proper test, including but not limited to: where an individual moves to the NHS in another part of the United Kingdom; where they leave but subsequently provide healthcare services to the NHS from another healthcare role, such as with a charity or a healthcare company; where differing levels of professional regulation apply, such as a chief executive who is a clinician compared to one who is a non-clinician; where there is a failure to co-operate with a review of this nature and what the consequences of that should be; and reviewing the effectiveness of such investigations themselves when they are conducted. I will be pleased to hear the views of the hon. Member for West Lancashire, and those of the Health Committee, on these issues.
Thirdly, I have asked the Department to review the effectiveness of sanctions where records go missing in a trust, or where records appear to have been destroyed.
Fourthly, I have asked the Department for advice on what disciplinary action could be taken against individuals in relation to the findings of this report. Clearly due process needs to be followed, but it is important that we address a revolving door culture that has existed in parts of the NHS, where individuals move to other NHS bodies, often facilitated by those who are tasked with regulating them.
Fifthly, I will ask NHS Improvement and NHS England to clarify the circumstances under which roles were found or facilitated for individuals identified in the report as bearing some responsibility for the issues at the trust.
Finally, I have spoken with colleagues at the Ministry of Justice and confirm to the House that they intend to investigate the issues arising from this report in respect of HMP Liverpool specifically and the prison estate more generally.
All organisations and individuals make mistakes. Where this is used as an opportunity to learn and improve, we will do all we can to provide support. Where, however, there is any kind of cover-up or a blinkered denial of what has happened, Members of this House and the victims of that wrongdoing have a right to expect accountability. The hon. Member for West Lancashire  has done the NHS a great service. I will place a copy of the Kirkup review in the House of Commons Library. The Government are acting in full on the findings of the report.

Rosie Cooper: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I do not intend to test your patience today by dealing with the details of these matters; I will do that through Adjournment debates, questions, the Health Committee and other mechanisms available to me.
I thank the Minister for his kind words and his comprehensive statement in response to the excellent work of Bill Kirkup and his team. I pay tribute to Dr Kirkup for his thoroughness and independence, and I thank him most sincerely, on behalf of the staff and patients in Liverpool who suffered really badly at the hands of what I want to call a dictatorship—the regime. Whatever it was, what was done was done in our name and the name of the NHS, and those people deserve justice.
After the ACAS review, the CAP6 report and now the Kirkup report, with a National Audit Office report on the way and Nursing and Midwifery Council hearings due soon, it really is important that the NHS ensures that justice is not only done but seen to be done. Under Governments of all parties, the higher echelons of the NHS have closed ranks to protect themselves. That has got to stop. That senior people were able to inflict such harm on staff and patients and then just walk into other senior NHS jobs with six-figure salaries, and that in this case it could be arranged by the north regional managing director of NHSI, Lyn Simpson, is simply staggering.
I still cannot answer the question that the Minister posed—why were the chief executive and the board not fired? Why were they not sacked? It is incomprehensible. Nothing has been learnt over the past four years. As of only a few weeks ago, NHSI is presiding over another potential LCH, over in the Wirral’s hospitals trust.
I will obviously continue to pursue these matters with vigour on behalf of the staff and the patients, and I want to place it on the record for everyone who is affected that I do not see the Kirkup report as the end—far from it. The Minister has a legal and forensic background. How will he assure the House that these matters will be dealt with properly, and that cover-ups and backdoor deals have ended once and for all? The Secretary of State has said so many times, “This will stop. We are not going to keep moving failed executives around,” yet it continues to happen.
I will say quite honestly that I asked a question of a Minister last year and he answered me in good faith. He said, “NHSI doesn’t participate in moving staff around.” Not only can we now prove that it is true that it does, but it nearly happened in the Wirral a few weeks ago. The message has got to go out: “If you do this kind of stuff, you are responsible. You will not escape.” The NHS must be accountable, and those in it held responsible.

Stephen Barclay: I thank the hon. Lady for those comments. As I said, I have asked NHS Improvement and NHS England to clarify the circumstances under which roles were found or facilitated for individuals identified in the report as bearing some responsibility for the issues at the trust. I await the answer to that central question, which the hon. Lady posed.
On the sense of cover-up, the Secretary of State has provided leadership in bringing about the culture change on patient safety. Following the awful situation in Mid-Staffordshire, it was recognised across the House that changes needed to be made on patient safety, and I think the NHS itself has recognised that. NHS Improvement has new leadership, who commissioned the Kirkup report themselves.
On the changes that have been put in place, I alluded to the CQC regime and the chief inspector and the methodology. I spoke to the chief inspector yesterday. Every hospital has now been visited, using that new methodology, and obviously that programme will start to accelerate and target as further work visits are done. The methodology used for that has also evolved to include staff surveys, for example. So a number of measures have been taken, and the special measures regime is also very much at the heart of that.
A number of steps are being taken, but the approach that underpins those is that although we must create a duty of candour, enabling people to learn from the mistakes that will happen in an organisation employing more than 5 million people, there should not be the sense that people can escape their responsibility by moving within the system. I have discussed that with people in the NHS, and I believe there is a wide recognition that the culture has changed significantly. But clearly, as we consider the issues that emerge from the Kirkup report, the House will need to see further reassurance.
The hon. Lady asked how I and the Government will ensure that these issues are addressed, not covered up. First, no one doubts that the hon. Lady will use all the  parliamentary tools to pursue this matter, including in her role as a senior member of the Health Committee. I am aware that other members of the Committee, such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), a former shadow Health Minister, will take a significant interest in this issue. I know that the Chair of the Health Committee will do so. I have regular discussions with her, and as we address the “fit and proper” test and other issues, I look forward to benefiting from the expertise on that Committee.
It is clear that measures have been taken, and it is right that we recognise that much work has been done in the NHS to change the culture, to ensure that the warning signs are seen, and to ensure that something like this never happens again, but it is also clear that there are specific issues in the report to be responded to, and I very much share the desire of the hon. Member for West Lancashire that we do that.

Stephen Barclay: I spoke to colleagues in the MOJ yesterday about the issue that my right hon. and learned Friend raised in the first part of his question. I agree with him that the standards of care for those in prison should be the same as those in the NHS more widely. As he will know, NHS England took over commissioning for healthcare services in prisons in 2013; that is one of the changes that have been made. He will also know that the Dr Kirkup’s report drew attention to local factors, including a personal conflict of interests that goes to the heart of the relationship between the trust and the prison. However, he is absolutely right to allude to some wider issues from which we need to learn.

Guy Opperman: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement following the Opposition-day debate on state pension age.
The decision to equalise the state pension age for men and women dates back to 1995 and addresses a long-standing inequality between men and women’s state pension age. This change was part of a wider social trend towards gender equality, but was also a decision, partly as a result of European and equality legal cases, relating to occupational pension provision.
During the Blair and Brown years, the then Government decided that a state pension age fixed at 65 was no longer affordable or sustainable. The Pensions Act 2007 introduced an increase in state pension age to ages 66, 67 and 68. The coalition Government brought in further changes under the Pensions Act 2011, which accelerated the equalisation of women’s state pension age and brought forward the increase in men and women’s state pension age to 66 by 2020. During the passage of this Act, Parliament considered a range of alternative options, resulting in a £1.1 billion concession that capped the maximum increase any woman would see in her state pension age at 18 months, relative to the Pensions Act 1995 timetable.
Many Members raised the issue of communications in the November debate. Since 1995, the Government have gone to significant lengths to communicate these changes. People were notified with leaflets, an advertising campaign was carried out and later individual letters were posted out. Those affected by the 1995 Act changes were sent letters informing them of the change to their state pension age between 2009 and 2011, with letters sent to 1.2 million women. Those affected by the Pensions Act 2011 changes were sent letters between January 2012 and November 2013, which involved sending over 5 million letters with an accompanying leaflet.
Life expectancy and state spending are what have driven these changes. Society has changed in countless ways since the 1950s and life expectancy is no exception. A girl born in 1951 was expected to live to 81, and a boy to 77. By 2018, the latest Office for National Statistics cohort figures show an increase of over 10 years for newly born girls and over 12 years for boys, to 92 and 89 respectively. Life expectancy at older ages has also gone up during this period and is projected to continue to increase in future years.
These welcome increases in life expectancy of course have implications for the state pension. As people live longer, they invariably also spend longer in retirement. Had we not equalised the state pension, women would be expected to spend over 40% of their adult lives in retirement, a proportion which would only continue to increase. This situation is not sustainable for any Government and means increasing taxes for the working population. Going as far as some campaigners have urged and revoking the 1995 Act would represent a loss of over £70 billion to the public purse.
The state pension must be maintained on an affordable footing for future generations of pensioners and taxpayers. That necessitated the Government’s action to equalise and then increase the state pension age through the Pensions Acts of 1995, 2007, 2011 and 2014.
Any further transitional arrangement would come at great cost. The Government have considered many options and all of the proposals would be wrought with substantial legal problems, as well as financial ones. Any amendment to the current legislation which creates a new inequality between men and women would unquestionably be highly dubious as a matter of law. Causing younger people to bear a greater share of the cost of the pensions system in this way would be unfair and undermine the principle of inter-generational fairness that is integral to our state pension reforms.
Let me turn to some of the proposals from the debate. The Scottish National party seeks a full compensation package of at the very least the reverse of the 2011 Act. The SNP costed this at £8 billion, but that is a vast underestimate: it would actually cost the taxpayer over £30 billion and potentially even more. There is also no doubt that the Scotland Act 2016 gives the Scottish Government the powers they need to address this issue. The Labour Opposition have made multiple suggestions, with many seeking the full compensation package of £70 billion. In addition, they have proposed in their manifesto keeping the state pension age at 66. That would cost over £250 billion more than the Government’s preferred timetable by 2045-46. Payments on this scale are simply unaffordable and cannot be justified.
The key choice a Government face when seeking to control state pension spend is to increase state pension age or pay lower pensions, with an inevitable impact on pensioner poverty. The only alternative is to ask the working generation to pay an even larger share of its income to support pensioners. I believe that successive Governments have made appropriate but difficult decisions to equalise and increase the state pension age. A significant concession was made in 2011 so that no woman will see an increase to her state pension age of more than 18 months, relative to the 1995 Act timetable. To renege on our decisions and further increase costs to the public, especially the working population, would be unfair and unaffordable.

Jack Dromey: I thank the Minister for his statement and for arranging to let me have sight of it earlier this morning.
The state pension for women born in the 1950s should be set in the wider context of the Government’s—uninspiring, I have to say—track record on pensions. Last July, the Government announced that they would be bringing forward the increase in the state pension age to 68 in 2037, justifying this on the increase in life expectancy. However, in the same week, the renowned expert on life expectancy, Professor Sir Michael Marmot, described how a century-long rise in life expectancy was
“pretty close to having ground to a halt,”
and had flatlined since 2010—in part, I have to say, the consequence of Government policy on austerity.
Since then, statisticians from the ONS have revealed that by 2041 life expectancy for men and women would be a year less than had been projected just two years previously. In addition the ONS has revealed that, although women continue to live longer in good health than men, their healthy life expectancy has decreased since 2009. Yet more evidence from Public Health England shows how deep inequalities in healthy life  expectancy remain. On average, people in the UK are now projected to live shorter lives than previously estimated. Does the Minister agree?
It is in this context that the Government are failing women born in the 1950s. This statement does nothing to address the pensions injustice these women face. The Government have had multiple opportunities to act, so why is the Minister again refusing to use the opportunity of a motion passed by this House to do so to take further steps? It is unacceptable that we are having to make this same argument and raise the same points again because this Government continue to refuse to help these women, who are suffering and losing out due to the acceleration of the state pension age and lack of proper notice. This issue is not going to go away. Why do the Government continue to act as though it will? This statement is, sadly but not unsurprisingly, yet another example of the Government’s failure to give women born in the 1950s the dignity and respect they deserve. It is a missed opportunity to take real action.
We have all heard often heart-breaking stories from many thousands of women affected by the changes about how the situation they face is one of desperation and fear of poverty. Christine in my constituency is 62 and is now having to wait until she is 66 to retire, with both her husband and her father having just died. In her words, “Not that cleaning jobs are a bad thing, but I have never done a cleaning job in my life and I am now having to do three cleaning jobs to make ends meet until such time as I can retire.” That is wrong.
It is to this Government’s shame that they refuse to recognise the very real basis for the fears of women such as Christine. What immediate measures will the Government take to address this appalling situation? Does the Minister understand how difficult it is for many women in their 60s to retrain and access decent work? What support will his Department offer these women—or will he repeat the bizarre proposal made from the Conservative Benches that they might take up apprenticeships?
As we have repeatedly set out, there are several immediate actions the Government could and should take, but time and again they have refused. Can the Minister explain why he refuses to offer women affected by Government changes to the state pension age the cost-neutral option to draw their state pension at age 64, as we have proposed? That would allow women who choose it to retire up to two years earlier.
The pension age is due to rise to 66 by the end of 2020. We reject the Government’s proposal to increase the state pension age even further. We will act by putting in place a new review of the pension age, specifically tasked with developing a flexible retirement policy that reflects the contributions people make, the wide variations in life expectancy and the arduous conditions of some work.
It is also right to extend pension credit to those who were due to retire before the increase in the pension age, which would benefit hundreds of thousands of women. Will the Minister look again at that proposal?
In conclusion, sadly, this statement does nothing to help women born in the 1950s. Actions are needed, not words, if the Government are to restore some of the faith and dignity that many people feel they have lost as a result of the Government’s refusal to act and to  introduce proper transitional procedures. These are the women of Britain—the women who built this country. They deserve nothing less.

Guy Opperman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He seeks an independent review of the state pension age. Well, the Government did that last year. The Cridland review was independent of Government and it published its conclusion, just as the Labour party manifesto called for. The review’s findings supported the assertions that the Government have put forward.
The Labour party used to be financially credible, but sadly those days are long gone. The Labour party, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, passed the Pension Act 2007, which raised the state pension age. We now have the bizarre situation in which the Labour party manifesto states that the state pension age should not go beyond 66. In other words, it is going back on its own decision in 2007. Its credibility is sadly lacking.
The situation is further complicated by Labour’s reliance on Michael Marmot. The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions keeps relying upon him, and the hon. Gentleman repeated that today. Michael Marmot made it very clear that “improvements in life expectancy at birth, which had been around a one-year increase every five years for women, and every three and a half years for men, have slowed since 2010 to a one-year increase every 10 years for women and ever six years for men.” The point is that the increase is still going ahead; it might have slowed to a degree, but life expectancy continues to rise.
The Labour party agreed in 2004 that the ONS cohort figures should be accepted and then followed them thereafter. The ONS produced a report last December on life expectancy at birth, which found that in 50 years’ time, by 2066, cohort life expectancy at birth is projected to reach 98 years for females and 96 for males, a rise of over six years for both genders. In 2018 life expectancy at birth is projected to be 92 for women and 89 for men.
Let me touch briefly on the Fuller Working Lives strategy, which I am sad to say the Labour party seems no longer to support. There are 1.2 million people over the age of 65 in employment, which should be celebrated. It is entirely right that retraining might not be suitable for everyone, but it is also right that Governments of every hue should provide opportunities for those who wish to take those things up. For example, over the most recent nine-month period, the number of apprenticeship starts for people between the ages of 45 and 59 was 53,000, and for the over-60s it was 3,400. That means thousands of people taking opportunities for retraining. With respect, that should be supported.

Ruth Smeeth: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, although I think many others will be astonished that he has had a bank account for that long. There is a genuine issue about the responsibility of community banking. When I got my first paying-in book, there were 20,585 branches across the country, but by 2012 that figure had dropped to just 8,837. In the past three years alone, we have seen a further 1,500 branches close, and that does not include the announcement of further closures made in the past three months.
The hole that these closures leave behind goes far beyond an empty shop front. For the elderly or disabled, a 3 mile journey to the nearest branch is more than inconvenience. In my constituency, Burslem, Kidsgrove and Tunstall are all facing the loss of well-used local bank branches and the impact on local residents and local businesses will be severe. In Burslem, we are currently facing the prospect of losing our very last bank branch, a local Lloyds. Burslem is the mother town of the Potteries, as I am sure the whole House is aware. It is home to Burslem School of Art and the Wedgwood Institute, to Port Vale football club and the outstanding Titanic brewery. Yet if these plans go ahead, there will no longer be a single solitary bank. What message does that send to a community that is doing everything it can to support local businesses and improve our town centre? When did community banking become a phase devoid of meaning?
In Kidsgrove and Tunstall, Co-op customers are faced with the prospect of losing their local branches—the last remaining Co-op banks in my constituency. As a Tunstall resident and a customer myself, I know how popular the branches are and the impact that their disappearance will have. Walk into any one of these branches at virtually any time of day and people are queueing. They are used by hundreds of residents as well as local businesses.
Petitions against the closure have already attracted thousands of signatures, and residents have contacted me about what the closures will mean for them. I must thank Councillor Kyle Robinson for leading the campaign in Kidsgrove, collecting more than 1,200 signatures so far, as well as Tom Simpson, Lucy Kelly and local traders in Tunstall and Tunstall market for their incredible efforts, as well as the wonderful June Cartwright for co-ordination of the Our Burslem campaign.
The closures will have an immediate effect and impact on people’s lives. I have heard from elderly constituents who use the Tunstall Co-op branch and will be forced instead to travel 3 miles via unreliable public transport to a city centre with no public conveniences. For people in their 70s and 80s, or those with a disability, this is more than an inconvenience—it is a genuine struggle.
That was brought home to me by a story from a constituent whose parents have used the branch for many years. They are not technologically savvy— a weakness I, and I am sure others across the House, share—and they find it difficult to use an ATM or to pay for things in shops using their debit cards. If the House will humour me for just a moment, I want to quote what my constituent had to say about this matter:
“My parents are 81 and 83 years old and have used the Co-op bank in Tunstall for many years. The staff know my parents very well. They are exceptionally helpful, supportive, patient and ensure that they understand everything that they need to. Knowing  that my parents have this level of support when I’m unable to be there every day, provides me with a great deal of reassurance, and I’m extremely grateful for this.”
I am sure that we all know people who benefit from this level of personal service and for whom the faceless and bewildering world of online banking simply will not work. In fact, in my great city too many of my constituents do not even have access to the internet. In the past three months, the Office for National Statistics suggests, up to 51,000 people, or one in four, aged over 16 in Stoke on Trent have not accessed the internet. One in four. For the record, that is more than double the national average, which makes talk of internet banking as the panacea for this crisis nonsense for too many people.
For businesses too, the closures present a challenge. For those who trade primarily in cash it is neither safe nor practical to expect staff to travel halfway across the city to deposit the day’s takings. And for small businesses with a limited number of employees, the time that this will take out of their day is a real hindrance. One of the defences often given in advance of such closures is that nearby ATMs will continue to be available, yet hundreds of them are at risk of being closed down thanks to the proposed overhaul of the LINK network. What is more, the services provided by external ATMs are incredibly limited, even compared only with the automated services available in bank branches.
The Post Office provides a valuable service, and in 3,000 locations—soon to include Burslem—it is the last banking retailer in town. But its ongoing restructuring process has seen too many branches close in recent years and we do not know what the future holds. Of course, although the Post Office can support customers looking to withdraw or deposit cash, it cannot provide the same range of services and advice as a bank branch.

Ruth Smeeth: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. For many young women on a Friday night, the prospect of walking all the way out of town to a petrol station’s cashpoint may leave them vulnerable and afraid.
All that is merely a snapshot of the human impact that the decline in community bank branches is having on communities like mine. I am deeply concerned about what will happen to our towns should these branches disappear. I had hoped that the banks would share, or at least understand, that concern. Instead, when I met representatives from the Co-operative bank, which is no longer associated with the Co-operative Group, my concerns were dismissed and ignored. When I pointed out that the bank’s impact assessments were riddled with obvious inaccuracies, its representatives merely shrugged and said that it would make no difference to their decision. They treated me, and by extension my constituents, with contempt. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
The Co-operative is a bank that once distinguished itself by its commitment to ethical finance, so tell me what is ethical about leaving a community without a lifeline and ignoring its objections? What is responsible about providing an incompetently researched impact assessment that cites nearby alternative branches that closed down a year ago? What is caring about hearing the concerns of 80-year-old men and women who have used a local branch their whole lives, and simply saying to those people, “The world has moved on—there’s an app for that now”? Let us be clear: a bank that treats people in that way cannot claim to be a “community” anything and should be embarrassed even to try.
As the statistics demonstrate, the problem is not limited to north Staffordshire. It is a national problem, certainly, but that does not mean that the hardship is evenly distributed—far from it. University of Nottingham research found that between 1995 and 2012, the areas that suffered the largest decline in branch numbers were
“characterised by unemployment rates and levels of renting from the public sector that are far above the national average”.
The researchers concluded that
“the least affluent third of the population has borne the brunt of two thirds of net closures.”
The people making those decisions might call it the reality of market forces, but I call it abandoning  the people and communities that need those services the most. Whatever we choose to call it, the facts remain the same: the poorest and most vulnerable people in our country—especially those in rural or inner-city areas—are frequently discriminated against in the banks’ decision making process.
The social cost of excluding low-income consumers from mainstream financial services can be severe, and could even risk driving people into less legitimate but more visible and convenient methods of financing, including loan sharks, legal and otherwise. The costs of these closures go beyond the individual; they have long-term repercussions for the whole community. The Campaign for Community Banking Services has argued that bank closures contribute to the commercial decline of an area, as better-off consumers change their purchasing habits and begin to shop, bank and even socialise  further afield. Worse still, closures are associated with a real decline in local bank lending. Growth in lending to small and medium-sized enterprises is dampened by an average of 63% in postcodes that lose a bank branch, and that figure grows to 104% for postcodes that lose the last bank in town. The impact on our high streets, on our local businesses, and on future regeneration can be devastating.
What does all that mean for towns such as Burslem, where local people are coming together to lift their community up and push back against years of decline? There was a time when the local bank was thought of as the heart of the community—perhaps it still is—so what happens to a community when it loses its heart? What happens when the monetary circulation of a town is cut off mid-beat? What happens when the last financial lifeline disappears and leaves the elderly and vulnerable without support? The world we live in is not the same as it was 10 years ago, let alone 40 or 50 years ago. Times change, technologies change, and we must change with them. But we must also do more to ensure that as the world moves, we do not leave behind those who find it hardest to keep up. We must recognise that there remains a place for community banking, local lending and face-to-face advice. That means we need the banks to take some ownership and responsibility for their loyal customer base. They need to be imaginative and consider sector and community-wide solutions, not pass the buck and blame their customers. If they will not do it voluntarily, we will have to force them to.
The banking sector has options. Banks could launch community banks that share counter facilities, like they do in parts of Spain. They could invest in multi-functional ATMs so that customers can pay in money directly, in their local communities. They could fund more extensively community-based financial education to assist people with online banking. They could even fund access to broadband in some of the harder to reach communities, so that their customers could access online banking. Yet all we have had from the sector is silence. We need to ensure that our banks are working in everyone’s interests, not just their own.

Jamie Stone: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in this debate, because I have a very long way to travel. I apologise to the House for not being present when the winding up speeches take place; it is not an intentional discourtesy.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on making a really first-class speech. She covered every single point, and I am left with almost nothing to say as a result, which is rather distressing for someone like me who has a tendency to be verbose.
This issue causes me an element of personal pain because I have a number of friends who work for the Royal Bank of Scotland, at all levels of the bank. My comments about the bank are not intended particularly for the bank; they are aimed at the system in general. In my constituency, we face the closure of three RBS branches. One, in Tongue in north-west Sutherland, may be on hold—there has been a stay of execution. However, in the old royal boroughs of Tain and Wick, the intention is to close the branches. I have never seen an issue that has caused so much deep unhappiness among my constituents.
Call me old fashioned, but the bank and the bank manager were as much a part of the social structure of these communities as the doctor, the minister and the school teacher. I think particularly of what happens when someone has, for example, a seed corn business—from little acorns mighty oaks grow. The point is that, in the past and even in recent times, someone with a business idea could go to the branch of their bank and say to the manager, “I have this idea. This is my business plan. Will you take a punt and lend me the money?” I have seen, in my home town, some seriously big businesses grow in my lifetime from absolutely nothing—there was a brave bet by the bank manager. We should not underestimate that.
The point has been made about the post offices. Our main post office in the town of Tain in the north of Scotland closed. Our post office now, which is very well staffed by well-intentioned individuals, is essentially a newsagent. The gap between the counter, where a person does their business, and the magazines is only the distance between two Benches in this place. If someone is trying to bank large amounts of money at the same time as Mrs McKenzie is trying to buy her copy of the   Scots Magazine, everything gets muddled and, frankly, the staff get hassled. I really do not envy their position one little bit.
I have a short anecdote, which reflects on the banks. My first bank account, with the Royal Bank of Scotland, was opened by my father when I became a student. He put in £16—I did not see many £16s after that. In due course, I spent all the money because I was a young first-year student who did not know what he was doing. When my grant cheque came in, I opened another bank account in the Bank of Scotland and then I spent all that, too. The trouble came when the two bank managers talked to each other and said, “Do you realise that young Jamie Stone has two bank accounts and he is spending money like water?” Then they went and told my dad. There was absolutely no end of trouble over that. In a way, for those Members who are experts on Adrian Mole, that conversation, perhaps not completely correct today, headed off a potential multiple debt situation. I was pulled up and stopped—well, I had to be—which was probably to my great benefit in my life.
Banking is about the human face—of course it is. It is about seeing someone in the branch of a bank who says, “Don’t worry. What’s happened here is that the payment will not clear for three days.” That can be the difference between peace of mind and mental torture. It takes someone just to say, “Wait a minute, I will go online and take a look. Oh, here’s the problem. This is what’s happening.” You cannot take that away. We talk about online banking. Well, let me tell Members: if I hit the icon on my phone, it says that I have been logged out and, no matter how hard I try, I cannot get back in again. I do not have a clue, just like when I was 18, I do not know what my bank account is doing. Therefore, online banking is not for everyone.
The issue, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) said, is one for Government. The only way in which we will stop this endless gloomy slide of closures, which is eating into our communities and sapping morale, is for the Government to say, “Wait. What is the public service responsibility here?” They should then come forward with some thoughts and guidelines. It has been suggested that perhaps we should combine banking facilities and get the clearing banks to work together to form a one-stop shop. That is a very interesting idea.
I look for something from the Government saying, “We recognise that this is a responsibility, that this is dangerous for the structure of society and that these are the proposals that we intend to bring forward.” I am an optimist, so I wait in the hope that there will be something that will sort this out once and for all.

Caroline Flint: I am sure that we all heed your words, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your consideration this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) on securing the debate.
I listened very carefully to the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), but I am afraid that he seemed to be talking himself into a bank closure. Of course, this debate is about banking services, but I hope that we can also focus on the need to think creatively about the sort of sustainable bank—a community hub—that is necessary. This is perhaps not necessary in our cities, where we can walk down the street and pass six banks in half a kilometre, but it is necessary for our small towns and semi-rural communities around the United Kingdom. For them, it is the bank’s presence in a new sustainable form that we are fighting for and championing today.
In August 2017, Reuters reported that bank branches across Britain had closed at a rate of 300 per year since 1989. The Daily Mail reported in December 2017 that over 1,000 branches had closed in 2015 and 2016, and a record 802 branches closed in 2017. The accelerating pace of closures appears relentless. In my constituency, the town of Tickhill lost its last bank in 2015. In 2016, the town of Thorne lost its HSBC branch. Then, in November 2017, RBS served notice that the town of Thorne will also lose its NatWest branch, and the town of Bawtry is to lose its last bank branch, also a NatWest.
The previous Government’s response to this relentless wave of bank closures was to announce an access-to-banking protocol in March 2015. It is now clear that the protocol was not what it seemed. It laid out a timetable for consultation about impact and the provision of alternative banking, but no—I repeat, no—mechanism to stop a branch closing. So the process for closure has been determined, but a mechanism to halt a closure is non-existent. Communities have no more chance of stopping the closure than they did in 2015. The Government have done, and are doing, nothing to change this. “It is a private matter; it is a commercial matter”, we have been told on several occasions during Prime Minister’s questions in recent times. The Government decline to  collect statistics on closures or on how many communities are now without any banking service. It is as though closures were an inconvenient truth.
The banks would have us believe that this is a story of enlightened pensioners managing their ISAs and direct debits on their smartphones. The truth is somewhat harder to get to. This House, I believe, is not nostalgic, nor opposed to telephone or smartphone banking. We are not against people managing payment on their PCs. But the selective figures provided by RBS-NatWest to justify closure give a completely distorted impression of their NatWest branch to each of the towns in Don Valley. For example, RBS was keen to tell me that 88% of Bawtry customers and 86% of Thorne customers now bank in other ways, and that only 48 customers in Bawtry and 69 in Thorne attend the branch on a weekly basis—although the time period for this estimate was not provided to me. Yet when a member of my staff went to the Bawtry NatWest midweek in mid-January—a quiet post-Christmas week—they saw a queue outside the bank before it opened at 10 am, and at 10.45 am they found a queue more than 10 deep in the bank, with several counters in use. But when I asked RBS how many transactions took place at the Thorne and Bawtry branches in the first hour of each day since the new year, the bank refused to disclose this information. It was “commercially sensitive”, I was told. Nor would RBS furnish me with information on what proportion of the customers are pensioners, how many transactions took place at each branch in the past year, or why neither branch opened on a weekend. On a Saturday morning, footfall could be more frequent.
So much for dialogue and consultation. Well, I say this to Ross McEwan, RBS’s chief executive, and to Les Matheson, NatWest’s chief executive, personal and business lending: please do not patronise me with offers to meet a “senior representative” when you refuse to provide any information that may demonstrate that small businesses, pensioners or the community generally may need the services provided in the Thorne and Bawtry branches more than you care to admit. In response to a question about the possibility of branches sharing premises to make them more viable, I was told by Mr Matheson that NatWest’s arrangement with the post office means that the post office is now “the shared premises”. On that basis, why have any branches at all? The post office is the NatWest!
Where is the genuine attempt to find a model for sustainable banking? Instead of small counters in corner shops, why cannot post offices be located in secure bank premises, sharing them with more than one bank? Why cannot several banks have staff in Thorne or Bawtry on different days of the week, with banks sharing overheads in secure premises to create, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said, a community banking hub? That could be a win-win situation.
Where is the attempt to bring young people into branches—some real outreach to make them see the bank as more than an app on a smartphone? I do not know about colleagues around the House today, but I am always being lobbied by banks about their latest wheeze to provide for financial inclusion. They are always telling me about how they want to do more in our schools and communities to give people the skills not only to press a button on a computer or click on an app, but to understand what financial literacy really means.  They are always lobbying us, but I do not see any effort to attract young people into branches to help them with financial decisions. Let us not stop at young people. Many of my constituents do not have a bank account at all and have never had one, and there are plenty of other people who still do not know quite how to go about getting a mortgage, how to run an ISA, how to save, or how to pay off debt.

Michelle Donelan: I do not believe that mobile banks are the answer; I am proposing that potentially they are a part of the solution. I agree on the point about cold weather. That is a very valid and worthy consideration.
I have worked locally with Lloyds to reduce the impact and to manage the transition of the loss of branches in Bradford on Avon and Corsham. I am pleased to say that we have a provisional agreement for a mobile bank trial in Corsham. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that the case for such a trial is just as valid in Bradford on Avon. I am sure the Minister, as a local Wiltshire MP, also agrees.
Turning to the impact of bank branch closures, each case is different in every circumstance. When severe, it can suggest, alongside closure, a lack of investment in training and support for older and vulnerable people. That is why I reiterate that a three-month notice period is not long enough. It takes time to build some people’s  confidence in the security of digital banking. Alongside Lloyds bank and Barclays, I have run three fraud workshops, which were heavily attended, particularly by the elderly community. Support to vulnerable residents and the elderly is crucial. It is important to remember that about 4 million people—mainly the elderly—are not online at all. However, we must not write off older people as incapable of using the internet. We must support and manage them, and give them the tools and skills to make progress. More than 600,000 people aged over 80 already have online banking. They put me to shame, as I joined only last year.
Another stumbling block to digital banking can be deprivation, which can render people unable to own a computer or a smartphone. Mobile blackspots and patchy internet services are both common in the villages in my constituency. Banks should ensure that an alternative option is accessible, such as mobile banking or sufficient public transparent to the nearest branch, and I again make the point that Bradford on Avon really needs mobile banking.
Post offices are not the answer, but they are part of the solution and can play an essential role. Our post offices have been struggling for years, but incorporating banking into their services is proving to increase their footfall and helping to engage people in their services again. The Post Office currently offers basic banking services to many bank customers and is expanding that to business customers. As has been noted, awareness is the key problem, but it is also about changing consumers’ habits. I was pleased that at the autumn Budget of 2017, the Treasury wrote to the Post Office and UK Finance to stress the importance of raising public awareness. I would like to hear the result of that from the Minister.
In conclusion, it is important that we do not resist technology, but that we accept and embrace change to enable progress, grow our economy and compete on the international stage. However, I want to be realistic. I believe that it is inevitable that all branches will eventually close. The supply of them has reduced by 60% in my lifetime, so I think that we should encourage a sustainable hub model to emerge—a one-stop shop—where post office and banking facilities can be offered, as well as debt advice and potentially even a citizens advice bureau. That will help to safeguard our high streets. The transition period is so important, along with the support available. Banks need to lead the way in training and supporting people who are currently unable to support themselves through their digital skills. We must also encourage the roll-out of mobile banking.
I hope I have outlined today that the banking world is changing, but that there is a process whereby we can improve the transition, so that everybody in society can continue to embrace technology. We must support our community.

James Frith: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Is it not true that too often, when we see the march of progress, people assume that the have-nots will simply catch up, and that no intervention is required from Government or statute to bring that about?
When I asked business owners in the town for their input for today’s debate, the following contributions stood out. Steven White, pet shop owner on Ramsbottom High Street, said:
“we banked with NatWest…the direct impact is that we now have to queue at one counter in the post office”
while others are doing all sorts. He added:
“We get our weekly change here, and there is now a delay in the payment hitting our account, so when things are tight, as they sometimes are, we can no longer rely on getting our day’s receipts in to help”
with cash flow. He points out:
“We could move banks but there is no confidence that who we move to will stay open in our town”
or nearby.
Mrs P’s Luxury Ice Cream told me:
“We have found it increasingly difficult to bank cash as the RBS is now closed two days during the week. I feel that there is very little consideration given to the elderly population”—
many of whom are their customers—
“who largely prefer face to face banking.”
Louise Isherwood of Ramsbottom Sweet Shop said:
“People used to pop in whilst in town using the banks…there are so many less people in town”
now
“on a daily basis…to make it worse, if the banks sell the building…for use as a wine bar”
people will not visit during the day—and they will not buy sweets at night.
In closing, here are some possible solutions. The Government should sponsor more challenger banks that operate at break even or not for profit. We should consider extending the role and mandate of credit unions. Labour’s proposed regional investment banks would ensure that community banking has a primary role in the service offer, and the Government should adopt that principle immediately. There should be rewards in the form of tax incentives for community banking operations when the “profit and loss” or “balance sheet” argument of the existing bank is that it only breaks even.
I rather fear that the Government will hold their hands up and say, “We are just the Government; what can we do?” However, there is a case for them to intervene, and for the industrial strategy to incorporate the experience of hundreds of thousands of businesses. They are the real employers, wealth creators and taxpayers. At least 80% of our economy is made by those people. They are job-creating heroes, sweating it so that the Government receive their taxes. The Government should not dismiss the argument that this is simply a commercial decision for the big banks.
I urge the Government, instead of propping up the Carillion model of employment, to stand up for these real employers, heed the concerns expressed about the withdrawal of banks, and make a commitment to new community banking so that everyone in our society can benefit.

Peter Aldous: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) on securing the debate.
This matter is of specific interest to me. Early in December, Lloyds bank announced the closure of three branches in the Waveney Valley area of north Suffolk: in Bungay, in my constituency, and in Halesworth and Southwold in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). I should declare an interest at this point, because I am both a personal and a business customer of the Halesworth branch. Shortly after the Lloyds announcement, NatWest announced the closure of its branch in Beccles, which is also in my constituency.
My main concern is that, if Lloyds proceeds with the closure of its Bungay branch, there will be no bank left in the town, and I believe that we need policies to prevent that from happening. Some may say that I am a Luddite and that we cannot hold back the inevitable march of the internet and modernisation, but what concerns me is that some banks are closing branches in an indiscriminate, non-strategic way that will have an adverse impact on the elderly, the disabled, those without their own transport, small businesses, and the economies of the towns and hinterlands that will be left with no bank standing. In the last two years, Barclays and Norwich and Peterborough building society have closed their branches in Bungay. If Lloyds proceeds with its branch closure in May, there will be no bank left in the town. That has upset many people who transferred their accounts to Lloyds following the previous closures, and it will have a particularly negative impact on the elderly and disabled and on small businesses.
I have three specific concerns. First, if Lloyds proceeds with its closure, there will be no cashpoint machine with 24/7 access in the town centre. Bungay has three street fairs a year, which bring a significant amount of business into the town. Last Christmas an estimated 1,200 to 1,500 people came along, and there were long queues at the Lloyds cashpoint. Many of the traders who go to the street fairs only handle cash, and there is a real worry that, if it is not available locally, the fairs—which add so much to the vibrancy of the town—will suffer.
Secondly, it is important to emphasise that many businesses, both in the towns and in the countryside, still use cash and cheques. The lack of immediate access to cash and deposit points will, at least in the short term, cause considerable inconvenience and added expense. On the basis of my experience as a partner in a local family farm, I know that for several farmers the easiest way to handle payments from the grain merchant is still via cheques, and that quite often the rents paid by small businesses for farm buildings and workshops are still paid in cash. It should also be borne in mind that the change to internet banking in rural areas will require considerable improvement in broadband connectivity, an issue about which we have heard throughout the debate.
Thirdly, the lack of a bank in Bungay will affect the town’s ability to draw in customers from the surrounding area. Lloyds is redirecting its customers to its Beccles branch. That may mean that people who came into Bungay once a week to go to the bank, to do their shopping and to have a coffee or a meal may now do all that in Beccles. I met Lloyds representatives on 4 December, when I put those points to them. I asked them to reconsider their decision to close the Bungay branch. It is disappointing that I have not yet had a response from them, although I hope that that means they are giving the matter serious consideration.
With regard to NatWest’s closure in Beccles, I had a meeting with the bank’s representatives last month. I am disappointed with their decision, but they took me in some detail through why they reached the decision to close the branch and how they are now engaging with their customers. They are prepared to work with the local community. As well as a mobile bank and closer working with the post office, they have plans for a community banker who will have a base in the town at set days during the week, possibly in the library and the town hall.
I have mentioned that the closure of Lloyds in Bungay would result in there being no ATM accessible 24/7. With this in mind it is necessary to ensure that there remains a good network of cashpoints across rural Britain, where consumers and small businesses use cash to a greater extent than in urban areas. I thus urge the Government to support the Which? and Federation of Small Businesses campaign to get the Payment Systems Regulator to ensure suitable measures are in place to guarantee that consumers can easily access their money without charge.
It is important that measures are introduced that can help to avoid a situation where towns are left without a single bank. That could be done in a variety of ways, in particular by building on the post office network, which generally has a better rural reach than that of high street banks. The policies put in place, first by the coalition Government and then the current Government, have been successful in making the post office network more resilient.
In Bungay, the post office is in the newsagent and there is a drawback of lack of space. In towns at risk of having no bank, consideration should be given to providing additional funding to put in place a more substantial post office branch. Ultimately, I would look for this to be funded by the banks. Alternative options that could be considered are mutual societies or pop-up banks, where the high street banks join together to sustain a presence in the town.
Bungay was a pioneer of provincial banking, with Gurney’s, a precursor of Barclays, opening one of its first branches in the town in 1808. Some 210 years on, it will be a very sad day if the town no longer has its own bank and we must do all we can to ensure that that does not happen.

Susan Elan Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith) and all other contributors to the debate, but of course I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member  for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth). I was intrigued by her description of her first experience of banking and I remembered my wonderful chequebook with a nice colourful kingfisher on it. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), too, who secured this debate along with my hon. Friend.
I have to say that I am completely fed up, as are my constituents and many businesses in my constituency. We are fed up because we are a constituency of 240 square miles and we have a grand total of one bank branch left. I do not know what happened to all the rhetoric of the last bank in the community. Whatever happened, it did not work in areas such as mine and it is not working across swathes of the country.
I welcomed the banking protocol. In fact, I was part of a cross-party group of Members that went to see Professor Griggs about the protocol. I welcomed it and many of the suggestions in it. For example, I welcomed the fact that it highlighted the need for the collection of cash from businesses and the like and the co-ordination of that. I welcomed many of the things in that voluntary code, but it strikes me that not enough has been done subsequently. it certainly has not halted branch closures.
In 2016, when the last two branches were to close, at Chirk and Ruabon, a staff member and I took it upon ourselves to visit 126 businesses on the high streets of Chirk, Ruabon, Rhosllanerchrugog, Johnstown, Cefn Mawr, Plas Madoc and Acrefair—apologies to any constituents I have missed out—to ask about the many issues they face. Earlier in the debate reference was made to post offices. Having worked with local businesses and post offices in my constituency, I welcome any improvements where they have been made. I also welcome the work that the Treasury has done on standardisation, because we are no longer in the daft position where some things work for some banks, and other things work for other banks. There are post office branches where that works absolutely magnificently, but in others it simply does not work. If someone comes into a post office to buy a packet of crisps, and then someone else buys a bar of chocolate, but the person working there has to deal with a banking transaction in the middle of that, that is not a sustainable solution.
If we are looking to develop post offices in that way, that might be one exciting option to consider around the country. I know for a fact that post offices are doing all sorts of things, for example, granting credit union members access to their cash. I welcome that when it works, but we have to look at what provision is put in place when bank branches close.
Earlier in the debate it was suggested that the notification period for bank branch closures should be longer. I think that there is a case for that, but in too many cases we know that, when a bank gives notice that it is going to close a branch, that is what it is going to do. We can petition to our hearts’ content, with 38 Degrees petitions, petitions in this House, Change.org petitions—we could even create our own website and have some more petitions—but in most cases it does not make one jot of difference.

Gillian Keegan: It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) on securing this debate. Technology has been used to modernise the banking sector for decades and, as an industry, banking has seized the opportunity to use technology mostly to improve the customer experience wherever possible. In the ’90s, I worked as a technology procurement manager for a bank when we were upgrading branch infrastructure. Thinking back, the introduction of the ATM network was one of the first steps away from personalised, face-to-face banking, but what would we do without them? We cannot do without them, and I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Clwyd South about how important it is, as we face changes in the banking industry, that the ATM network and free access to it is preserved throughout the country.
The revolution in FinTech has forced another change in the banking model, and our banks no longer collect the income of merchants and disburse the cash to individuals. Our behavioural patterns have changed with technology. In 1988 we had more than 20,000 bank branches in the UK, and 25% of adults were paid in cash. In many respects, cash has had its heyday. Now accounting for less than 50% of transactions, we saw an 11% decline between 2015 and 2016 alone. Cash may still be king, but its crown is slipping.
That trend is set to continue. Already 6% of the population rarely use cash. Young people, in particular, prefer digital payment methods such as card, online and mobile banking. The model of branch banking as a conduit for cash movements therefore needs to change to ensure that banks remain commercially viable.
The speed of change has surprised many communities, with the uptake of digital banking being relatively recent, and it is important that adequate notice is given when changes are made to local banking services. In 2012 at least one of our major banks had no mobile users at all, but today there are more logins a day on mobile banking than via the web. Meanwhile, the average branch bank customer goes to the bank every two or three months.
Branch closures throughout the nation are predominantly a response to declining demand. In my constituency, Barclays closed its branch in East Wittering citing a  10% fall in transactions at the branch in a single year. However, Barclays has identified 80 customers who exclusively used the branch for their banking needs. Those people need alternative provision.
When a branch closes, it is important that the it gets in touch to advise customers of all the services that are available online, via telephone or via mobile banking. Many banks go beyond that and offer training and support to customers, especially the elderly and most vulnerable, to ensure that they are not excluded by the shift to digital services.
Like everybody else in this discussion, I am concerned that there is an increased risk of financial exclusion due to either a lack of digital know-how or a lack of access to the technology. Personal banking is something that many people, especially older members of our society, greatly value, and in many cases the alternatives are not suitable.
We need to ensure those customers know that the Post Office offers branch banking services for all major high street banks and can facilitate all the things that people do in a bank, including traditional cash and cheque services. That is a good alternative, as more than 98% of the population live within three miles of one of our 11,600 post offices nationwide, which makes it Europe’s biggest retail network.
The structure of community services is changing, with our traditional high street names consolidating into shared services. Becoming a community hub is important. The Post Office has managed that well in Chichester and is collaborating with retailers such as corner shops and book shops. That is a win-win for sustainability. Many Members will have been involved in debates about post office closures. We need to make sure that the network of face-to-face branch services is secured in some way, and post offices are a good alternative.
It is important that such services are well designed, as other Members have mentioned. I recently visited the new Chichester post office, which is co-located with Sussex Stationers and British Bookshops. There are seats available for those who cannot stand in a queue for long, and staff are on hand to assist people who are using self-service kiosks or who are waiting for the cashier. Needed privacy is provided. The service is similar to that provided by the old bank branches That is the right model, but these new post offices need to be well designed, and perhaps more could be done to promote best practice in design.
The Government have made significant strides in improving both mobile and broadband coverage, with 95% of households now able to get superfast broadband. Alas, in rural areas such as my constituency, many people still suffer from areas of poor connectivity, with some areas of my constituency ranking in the worst 10% in the country. As we increasingly rely on digital banking services, blanket connectivity is becoming increasingly important. We must continue our investment in digital connectivity to mitigate the impact of branch closures and to allow people to utilise the technology of today. It is clear though that for some of the older generation, the digital era will already have passed them by. Expecting them to bank digitally is simply not realistic and in cases such as these, the post office must be advertised as the new place for local face-to-face banking.  I am concerned that banks might be reticent to advertise post office banking as they may compete in some other areas.
All businesses must adapt to stay ahead of the game and the major banks are under increasing pressure to modernise their services, with new entrants disrupting banking models for businesses and individuals. FinTech firms are creating new and efficient financial platforms, offering lower prices to consumers for financial transactions. To keep up, our major banks have to move to a more customer-centric and digital model of working.
Changes in the banking sector have revolutionised how we do business and how we handle personal finances and, overall, I believe that that has been to the benefit of society. The advent of the microchip, the internet and mobile services have fundamentally altered many of our industries, and banking is no different. Banking practices have had to change to remain commercially viable and banks have had to invest in digital banking platforms, which has made life easier for most of us, but of course we must take care of those who are not willing or able use the services. These individuals must be informed of the other service providers, such as the post offices, and banks that are closing branches have a moral obligation to do that.

Craig Mackinlay: The hon. Lady makes the perfect point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said very clearly that, when charities hold grand county fairs, there may be temporary traders who do not have contactless facilities and will not at any time that I can foresee, which makes it a very cash-based business. There are also clubs and societies that rely on cash and cheques for the small transactions among themselves.
I recall, not that long ago—I do not want to single out NatWest for any particular criticism—an advert that said, “We are open all the time. We are keeping our branches.” It was criticising its competitors, saying, “Ah, look, our competitor banks have made your bank into a new trendy wine bar.” I am afraid that we are seeing far too many of those across the country. I recall very clearly that my first bank account was at Lloyds 33 years ago. That branch, which had been there for 50 years or more, is now a quite nice Cypriot restaurant. That highlights the point that the network is disappearing in my constituency in particular. Broadstairs has lost NatWest and Lloyds in this last year alone.
The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) mentioned her petitions. I also generated a petition, and the regional director for NatWest very kindly came to my offices and I delivered it to him. I received the warm words, “We’re consulting.” But of course, the outcome was probably determined some time before the petition was even thought about. Sandwich, one of the best preserved medieval towns in the country, has lost HSBC, Lloyds and NatWest in the last 18 months alone. Broadstairs and Sandwich are both now left only with Nationwide, which I salute for staying true to its roots in service to the community and maintaining its branch network.
We have seen the banks retreat from the smaller communities into the major conurbations and shopping centres. I do not know the experience of other hon.  Members, but whenever I pay in a cheque—my heart sinks when I receive a cheque in the post, because it means I have to wander somewhere to do something with it—the queues seem as long as they ever were.
Much has been said about the post office network, which is fantastic, but it is not always available and the queues are horrendous. The post office has closed in the small village of Ash in South Thanet—I say village, but it is getting towards town size, with a population of 3,500. We hope that the post office will be resurrected in a new branch or shop, but there is currently absolutely nothing available for the people of Ash, who are five miles from Sandwich, 16 miles from Canterbury and eight miles from Ramsgate.
Why do we not all use mobile apps and the internet? Well, that is all very well, but I do not want the elderly to be forced into accepting that type of banking, and people who have difficulties but are managing independent living need help with those kinds of facilities. My father is in his 80s, and is fit and well, but I do not want him to use mobile banking under any circumstances, because it is not uncommon for him to say to me, “Oh, I’ve had an email from Santander and I don’t even bank with Santander.” That is exactly the point. Many of us here, particularly those who are younger than me, are very internet-savvy and would recognise a scam banking email, but many of the elderly would not recognise it and might respond, giving up their internet banking details.
There are clarion calls across the House, mainly—dare I say?—from the Opposition, that it is up to the Government to do something. We often hear Members saying that the Government should do this or the Government should do that. In fact, we see it on the Order Paper on an almost daily basis. I do not think that this is a matter for the Government, although they can help to inform the debate. This afternoon, Members from all parties are saying loudly and clearly to the banks, “Stop what you’re doing and start thinking again about the communities you serve.”
Much has been said about the opportunity for joint banking facilities. That would be a very sensible route to take. I appreciate that a premises costs a lot of money, as it has to be heated and there are business rates, staff and security to pay. But surely three, four or five of the major banks could come together in some kind of grand banking hall, sharing facilities so that counter service is available. The call today is, “Banks, please do something.” They could also extend the availability of their mobile, caravan-type, irregular banking facilities that can go to smaller communities; I cannot see why that option should not be available.
We are all responsible for this situation. I am still a bit of a cash person. I even go into the bank and sign a cheque for cash. It was not many years ago that the cashier said, “Why don’t you use the cash point?” Of course, I do use cash points, but if I am passing the bank I often cash a cheque. I said, “Don’t put yourself out of a job. If more and more of us do that, you’re sounding the death knell of this branch.”
We see these changes here in the cafés in this House. I am always quite amazed that some of the younger people who work here will use a contactless card for their sandwich and a cup of coffee costing £1.90. I am  not like that, but I can see that my own level of card use is diminishing as the years go by. At the moment, I will use a card over the level of £20, but I am increasingly tempted to go for the contactless card under that £20 limit.
I recommend that Members encourage our constituents to get into the banks that still exist and use their counter facilities, because then the banks will not be able to say, “We’re closing because we’re not getting used enough.” The cross-party clarion call from this Chamber today has to be: “Banks, please stop. Let’s think again. Let’s work together. We want more joint facilities and more mobile caravan-type banking facilities going to our communities.” We can all do our bit by getting into the banks and using them.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). I pay special credit to the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for setting the scene so well and giving us an opportunity to make some contributions on this subject.
Five banks have closed in my area in recent times—in fact, one has not closed yet but is going to close—so this is happening in Northern Ireland as well. Clearly the bank closures are not just in one area of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but across all its regions, as others have said.
I represent the beautiful—the most beautiful, without a doubt—constituency of Strangford to the best of my ability. It is the most wonderful place to live in the whole of the United Kingdom. Everybody knows that, nobody doubts it for a second, but I just want to put it on the record, as I often do in this Chamber. I am blessed to wake up every day with a beautiful view of Strangford lough and all that country living entails. I am also blessed to have a 15-minute journey that takes me to my constituency office and the wonders of a great town. The make-up of my constituency is rural and urban; town and country. So it is with great pleasure that I contribute to this debate with both rural and urban hats on.
In my main town of Newtownards, the Bank of Ireland and First Trust Bank have closed, and down either side of the peninsula we have had banks close. The bank in Portaferry closed some years ago, but Kircubbin’s has now closed as well. I am currently trying to fight the closure of Ulster Bank in Killyleagh. When I say “fight”, I mean trying to stop it, not physically fighting it. We have had meetings with Ulster Bank officials and come up with some ideas, not on how to stop the closure, because we cannot do that, but on how to make it easier. This seems to be the latest banking fad: close the smaller branches, centralise everything, and it does not matter about the lack of customer services. What matters is how much profit the banks can get for their shareholders. That should not—indeed, must not—be the motivation for this happening.
When I met the officials from Ulster Bank for an open and frank discussion about the proposed closure, they were clear that the branch was closing and that nothing could be said to change the decision. That was disappointing, because the purpose of having meetings is to try to change opinion, ever mindful that there are others at a different level who are making decisions.  That was despite the fact that we had outlined the particular need for the branch to remain, given the needs of the rural community and those who are already isolated. In Kircubbin village, farmers and fishermen had banked at Ulster Bank for umpteen years. People from businesses in the village had strolled down to their bank, because it was within walking distance. We had an elderly population who looked on the bank as more than a bank, because they had a relationship with the people in it as well. Those things were lost. Now we have a credit union that has started up. I hope that it can fill some of the vacancy, but it cannot fill it all given the very nature of what it does.
I have real concern that these decisions are made by big banks that look only at the profit of the bank, not profit across the Province, and that they are not rural-proofing. Rural-proofing has to be part of the decision making process. Hopefully the Minister will give us some idea of whether, in his discussions with the bank, he has been able to raise the issue of rural-proofing and how it affects rural communities.
I believe that customers in Kircubbin who pay the same charges as customers in Belfast should receive a similar service. That is clearly not the case. It has once again come to pass that living in the country means being isolated and away from face-to-face interaction, which is an essential part of the banking trade.
Every one of us remembers our introduction to a bank. I remember well the first loan I took out from the bank. I will not go into detail, but the bank manager was most accommodating. To be truthful, the way we got our loan would never happen today. It was done very quickly, with the knowledge of me, and probably of my parents and their solid banking over some 30 or 40 years.
I put forward the case for Kircubbin, and particularly the needs of the fishermen and farmers in the area, and asked what would be offered to help those valued customers. I must say, I am still disappointed and annoyed. I was somewhat grateful that as opposed to walking away, as many banks have done with a “Too bad, so sad” attitude, the bank has committed to a leave-behind service that will take the form of a one-day-a-week community banker who will work from an office space or business in the town to help with one-on-one issues.
We have secured a mobile bank once a week in Kircubbin village and other areas in the peninsula—an option that the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) referred to. The elderly can get to that mobile bank, and those who have businesses can have an interaction there. With the mobile bank and a community banker, we got two things.
The bank has also been allowing people to bank in the post office for basic lodgements, withdrawals and balance checks. In the six-month run-down to the closure of the bank, there was a dedicated staff member who helped people to better understand and use the online banking system. There were also numerous tutorials available to users, and the bank made its community officer available to groups such as fishermen or famers over a period, to ensure that there was confidence in the new system.
I have watched people go into a bank and have someone explain how the online service works, but I can tell you that as soon as they walked out of that bank,  they were never going to use that service. They were confused and did not know what the purpose of it was. More time needs to be spent on that.
While we did not get the outcome I had hoped for, there is at least a clear determination that customers will not be completely abandoned, and I thank the bank for the long-term promises it has made. It has made the same commitment in terms of its withdrawal in Killyleagh on the other side of my constituency.
It seems like too many banks are closing, leaving customers who are not confident with online banking with no option other than to bank in that way. The problem I have with online banking is that it does not suit everyone, and many people need an alternative. I have seen customer services representatives talking to customers about online banking, and it is clear to me that they are unhappy and unsure how it works.
I personally like the paper trail of banking. I well remember when my mother took me down at the age of 16 to open my bank account with the Danske Bank. She gave me £20 to start it, which was a fortune in those days. Along with the £26 that I had saved for five or six years, I had £46. I was able to buy a Mini car for £45. That gives an idea of how far back it was. We thought we were rich, and we were, because I got my first car. I have been with that bank ever since.
I do not bank online. Indeed, I could not bank online with my limited computer skills. I do not believe that the bank should force this on those who are not internet-savvy and who leave themselves open to being victims of fraud, as they do not know how to protect themselves. That is another thing we must remember. As others have said, there are so many scams today, with people phoning up and saying, “I’m from the bank. Give me your details.” The elderly feel vulnerable, and we need to protect them. I have a particular concern about that, especially in my constituency. We do not let children internet-bank because we attempt to protect their interests, and yet they are more computer-savvy than a 65-year-old retired fisherman who we try to force this new way on.
I recently spoke in the RBS debate—it is nice to see the Minister in his place again, and we look forward to his response—and I again make clear that this is not a witch hunt against any particular banks. I have been impressed with their aftercare when they have pulled out of an area, as they have in areas such as Kircubbin and Killyleagh. Time did not permit me in the last debate to read out my closing remarks, so I will use them today.
I call for a return to the old-fashioned codes of truth, honesty, fairness, common decency, integrity and transparency throughout the whole of the banking industry. I call for a return of the bank manager who has an intimate knowledge of his branch and the people who use it—they really had such knowledge—not one who glances at an online profile. Bank managers should stop closing branches, and instead get to know the people whose money they take.
I support the call for a public inquiry into the Global Restructuring Group scandal that has so terribly affected businesses in my constituency and throughout the UK. I call for compensation for small businesses and for a resolution for those in the midst of strife. I understand that RBS is a business and must run as such, but when it put its fate into our hands in this House, it was more  than simply about giving it a handout; it was a chance for us to look at how this had happened and ensure it would never happen again, and we must take this duty very seriously.
The pandemic—it is a pandemic—of rural bank closures must be addressed, and we have a duty in this place to address it. I intend to do so, and I know many others wish to do the very same. We must be a united House: united against the banks and against the closures.

Paul Sweeney: My hon. Friend is correct, and that is one thing we do not see—I have tried to piece together the evidence, but it is not nationally recorded. What is the density of banking operations in the poorest communities in our society? Data is not gathered on that issue. Possilpark and Springburn fall into the most deprived decile on the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, including for employment, health, education and housing. That seems to be the case for a lot of areas with branch closures, certainly in the Glasgow area, and it would be interesting if the Government could oblige banks to provide the data as a matter of national standards. By contrast, in the wealthiest parts of the city—I took the example of Byres Road, which is arguably the wealthiest postcode in Glasgow—every major bank is represented. Banks seem to be withdrawing from the poorest communities while maintaining their services in the richest parts of the city, and if that is extrapolated across the UK, it paints a dismal picture.
It has been argued that bank closures are a reality of technological change because more people are using online banking services. In reality, however, 2 million Scots do not use online banking, and they are disproportionately older people who are not familiar with the change in technology. We must be realistic about the rate of change and how practical it is, so as to reduce the harm caused to society and prevent the generational dislocation that is evidently occurring. More than one third of people who use the services of Citizens Advice Scotland have no or limited internet access. How will they access finance and banking if the major commercial banks disinvest in their local communities? Such closures are not just driven by technological change.
It is a great privilege to be a council member of the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, and the banking sector is a huge driver of innovation in our society. As hon. Members have said, we have seen huge technological changes, and one great British innovation that sticks out for me is the ATM. In 2016, the Scot James Goodfellow was inducted into the Scottish  Engineering Hall of Fame for his work in inventing and patenting the first ATM in 1966. He did that in response to the desire by the major commercial clearing banks to close on Saturday mornings. People were trying to find a technological way to accommodate that desire, and that is how the ATM came into being and why it is so ubiquitous on our high streets today. We must harness technological change for the public good, not simply use it as a cop-out or an excuse to ridiculously disinvest from our communities at an inappropriate rate. We in the House must challenge that and adapt technological change for the public good; we cannot leave the banks to be judge and jury about the way that such change should occur.
I mentioned that closures are not just driven by technological change, and we must consider the banking sector in the UK. Five of the major commercial banks hold 85% of all current accounts, and personal banking services are combined with riskier investment banking activities. That is symptomatic of a very difficult and high-risk sector that in the last decade alone threatened our national prosperity with the banking crash.
The banking system in this country is an oligopoly and one of the most centralised systems in the world. As Adam Smith recognised, profit-seeking behaviour runs contrary to the common good and the creation of national wealth—we should always remember that when considering this issue. Germany has more than 400 local savings banks, known as Sparkassen, 1,000 co-operative run banks, and 300 private commercial banks, and that contrasts with the five massive banks in this country. Those banks in Germany are characterised by providing “patient finance”, not just to households and consumers but also—critically—to industry.
When James Goodfellow made his speech while being inducted into the Engineering Hall of Fame, he said that the greatest regret of his career was that ATMs were patented and invented in this country, yet they are not built or manufactured here. We have not benefited from this country’s industrial innovation, and our industrial strategy is symptomatic of our banking sector. We do not finance industrial growth because we are seeking high-risk, high-return profit in the City; we are not investing in the real economy, and that contrasts with the German banking system.
Why does Germany have the largest manufacturing sector in Europe, and one of the largest in the world? Because its banking system is resilient enough to underpin patient finance and allow real industrial growth and long-term economic resilience. We see that with German investment in machinery and a productive economy, and with their productivity rate—German workers produce in four days what UK workers produce in five. If we look at that as a broader symptom of malaise in banking and industry, we have to grip it and address it at all levels.
That is why I am so proud to stand here as one of the 39 Co-operative party Members of Parliament: the largest ever group of Co-operative MPs in Parliament and the third-largest party group in this House. The Co-operative party has long recognised the structural problems in society, which is why it proposes turning RBS into a mutual owned by its members and run in a not-for-profit manner in the public interest. The case for that is clearly self-evident and vital: we need that disruptive intervention in the sector.
We want to create a legislative mechanism to support the development of credit unions in the United Kingdom, one perhaps based on the US Community Reinvestment Act 1977, which I think was mentioned previously. The key innovation of the Act, introduced under the Carter Administration, was to combat discrimination and provide access to credit for low and moderate income communities. If we reflect on the nature of bank closures in the UK, it is highly likely that they disproportionately affect the poorest communities. In the United States, that was known as “redlining”: banks essentially blacklisted communities they thought not worthy of investment. We can make the accusation that that is happening today in this country, albeit on an informal and opaque basis. It is about time a light was shone on the reality of the economic dislocation happening in our poorest communities.
Legislation similar to the Community Reinvestment Act would combat that discrimination by providing access to credit for low and moderate income communities. It would apply a rating to banks based on their density of operation in poorer areas. In the US, investment credit unions are included as a CRA activity, meaning that the credit union sector is worth billions of dollars and it competes on an equal footing with commercial banks. Santander’s operations in the United States contrast with its operations in the UK: a £11 billion five-year commitment to support community benefits. An increase of 50% was announced in the US. It does not extend its American community reinvestment activity to the UK, because there is no legislative or regulatory imperative to do so.
The picture in the UK today is one of perilous dislocation, with banks withdrawing from our most vulnerable communities. It is the duty of this House and this Government not simply to capitulate to free market dogma, but to temper and control that market in the public interest.

Patricia Gibson: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman is being extremely rude. As I said, he is driven not by concern about banking communities but by his hatred of the SNP. It really is rather pathetic.
It sounded good to RBS when it said that it would not close the last bank in town, but that has long been abandoned. As a result, Kilwinning—a town of around 16,000 people—now faces the prospect of losing its last bank. We have seen this week that RBS is not deaf to the uproar that the closures have given rise to. Its public image lies in tatters, but it has opened the door an inch to reprieve some branches. I and SNP activists, who have been out every weekend, on Saturdays and Sundays, since after Christmas collecting parliamentary petition signatures to save our banks—having already collected thousands of signatures—now propose to run at the door that has been slightly opened and kick it open wide to save our branches. We will not give up in our quest to save our banks. We bailed out the banks and it is time that they lived up to their moral obligations to our communities.
If the closures go ahead in my constituency, it will bring the number of towns with no bank to six. The towns of Dalry, Stevenston, West Kilbride, Ardrossan and Beith no longer have a bank and, shortly it seems,  RBS intends to add Kilwinning to the list. I honestly do not think that any other constituency in the United Kingdom has been so adversely and cruelly hit. Indeed, the banks are stampeding out of Ayrshire at an alarming and staggering rate.
People have talked today about post offices picking up the slack, but the range of services that banks provide are not always available in post offices. Having a corner at the back of a Spar supermarket is no compensation for customers, who will get no privacy and not get the same level of services. Of course, it was only 10 short years ago that our post offices were under attack and stampeding out of our towns.
I cannot overstate the sense of anger and betrayal felt by these and similarly affected communities across the United Kingdom. From a bank that was bailed out by the taxpayer to secure its very survival, due its own incompetence—a bank that is still 73% owned by the taxpayer—this is a bitter pill to swallow. That pill is made all the more bitter by the fact that, last year, that very bank paid out £16 million in bonuses. The culture of excessive bonuses lives on, while the customer and taxpayer continue to suffer.
The UK Government retain all legislative and regulatory powers in respect of financial services, so they do indeed have the authority to call a halt—a pause—to the devastating round of closures while banks, stakeholders and the UK and Scottish Governments consider how best to take account of the obligation to banking customers and our communities. Whatever the banks may say, they do have an obligation to our communities—a service obligation, a financial obligation and, I would argue, a moral obligation.
Let us be clear: the bank closures mean that the affected communities no longer have access to day-to-day essential banking services. They mean that my constituents in Kilbirnie must undertake a round trip of 18.8 miles to access their new so-called “local” bank, with most relying on public transport to do so. They mean that RBS customers in Saltcoats are being directed to the next RBS, which is a round trip of 12.8 miles, and Kilwinning customers are being asked to undertake a round trip of 6.8 miles to visit their new “local” branch.
All of that is before we even get to the impact on local businesses, which are increasingly finding themselves without access to night safes. If local businesses cannot bank their takings at the end of the business day, they must incur an extra insurance charge for keeping the cash overnight, with all the security implications of that. These small businesses are the backbone of our communities and our local economy. Make no mistake: to leave a town with no bank is financial and social exclusion.
I have been told by RBS that the branches closed in Kilwinning, Saltcoats and Kilbirnie in my constituency will be replaced by mobile banks. That is not what constituents want. The mobile banks are not reliable, are not disability-compliant and are a poor substitute for the presence of a bank in our towns.
We will continue to fight these closures. We will continue to collect our parliamentary petition signatures because RBS must understand that the people of North Ayrshire and Arran, the people of Kilwinning, Saltcoats and Kilbirnie, will not sit quietly and take the poor treatment that has been meted out to them. I urge the  Minister to use all the means at his disposal, as the majority shareholder, on behalf of us, the taxpayer, to sort this matter out and order the banks to pause, consult communities and do the right thing. This matter will not go away.

Bill Esterson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on securing the debate, in collaboration with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). It has been an excellent debate. Many examples were cited, and there was cross-party acknowledgment of the devastating impact on all our communities of the closure of branches of a variety of banks.
The point about the impact on accessibility was well made. Members spoke about the impact on individuals and communities. As the Social Market Foundation points out, 11% of the population rely completely on high street bank branches, and that is typically the older and poorer parts of our communities. This is an example of financial exclusion it is a real problem throughout the country. Only 30% of the over-65 population use online banking. That is of particular importance in constituencies such as mine, which is in the top 20 of constituencies for people aged over 65. That is a real cause for concern, to which I shall return later, with examples from my constituency.
Individuals and businesses need banking services to suit their needs. A British Banking Association survey found that 58% of people surveyed stated that access to a branch—using a branch—was important to them, and 57% believed that face-to-face relationships with their bank were important. Those figures go up for businesses: for SMEs, the figures are that 68% believe that a branch is important and that 66% find that face-to-face banking is important. Therefore, the impact of branch closures is felt by individuals in their personal banking and for business banking, with particular impacts on our high streets—our communities. The Federation of Small Businesses warns that it is a great worry for its members that many now struggle to do the banking that they need.
In my constituency, in the last few years alone, we have seen closures of RBS, TSB, the Co-op bank, HBOS and HSBC branches. Alongside those we have seen significant post office closures. I agree with the Members who spoke about the important role that the post office network plays in providing banking services. Unfortunately, I see no evidence of co-ordination between the banks and the Post Office to ensure that post offices provide services in place of banks when there are closures.
In one of the three towns in my constituency—the town of Maghull, where I live—we have seen significant closures, adding Barclays to the list that I gave. The RBS branch in Maghull now opens for only two days, Monday and Friday. As was pointed out to me today by a constituent whose business has to bank the takings every day, that is absolutely hopeless. What are businesses to do on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday?
NatWest’s justification—it is online and anyone can see it—for the closure of its branch in Maghull includes the point that it is only 3.4 miles to the nearest bank, but that is hopeless if people cannot travel there by bus or car. For many older people, it is completely out of the question. NatWest also states that it consulted its  local MP: it clearly thinks that everything is OK because it asked me whether it was all right to close the branch. I did not say that it was, by the way.
We have heard some excellent speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North made points similar to mine about closures in the towns that she represents. She spoke about the vital function of bank branches for businesses depositing the day’s takings, and about the impact of the proposed closure of the Link network. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) spoke about NatWest closures, and said that his constituency now contains only one bank to serve all the communities there. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), among others, mentioned the lack of awareness of post office services. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley made a powerful case—

Bill Esterson: My right hon. Friend is working very hard on this campaign, as well as having worked hard to achieve that recognition in this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) mentioned the RBS closures, as did other Members in all parts of the House. Some spoke in a very heated way and no love was lost on a couple of occasions. An important point was made about the limited response of RBS to the concern that was being expressed about the closures. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith) drew attention to the key role of banks in attracting footfall and trade for other local businesses. He rightly spoke of the importance of Labour’s regional banking offer and the opportunity that it presents for community banking.
Like other Members who spoke, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) represents an area that contains only one bank branch to serve all her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) mentioned bus services and said that many of his constituents did not have access to the internet or phone. He also spoke about the impact on his local town centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said that bank branch closures hit the poorest communities hardest. He also rightly observed that we might do well to emulate and learn from the successful arrangements in Germany.
These branch closures are happening at a time when banks are making healthy profits. We have to wonder who the customers are, and whether the banks have lost sight of the fact that it is the personal and business banking customers who are their customers. I always thought that putting customers first was the way for a business to operate and succeed. That was certainly a lesson that I learnt when I ran a business.
Has the time come to put public good ahead of short-term profit? The challenger banks—such as Metro, which is open seven days a week, and the Bank of Dave, which results from the entrepreneurial approach taken by Dave Fishwick in Burnley—have demonstrated that  it is possible to make a success of a bank branch. Is it time for banks and financial services to be seen as a utility, an essential public service that delivers for customers—for high streets, communities and small businesses? We regulate the financial services sector now, and I can tell the Minister that if the Government will not add to that regulation by addressing this issue, a Labour Government certainly will. We will ensure that no closure can happen without proper local consultation, and, crucially, without the approval of the Financial Conduct Authority.
I cannot conclude without mentioning the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who mentioned RBS and GRG: the systematic abuse, the intentional and co-ordinated approach of management, the clear RBS board responsibility for the mistreatment of small businesses. That serves as another reminder that the current attitude and approach of banks is not what is needed by their customers.
Government must intervene so that the banks work for us. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, the banking access protocol has not delivered. There is an impact on communities, travel, public transport, the environment, economies and businesses from lowering footfall, and there is lower lending in places without bank branches. Some 10% of households do not have the internet, and only 9% of small firms approached their banks in 2016 for finance. All of these things are examples of why the banking system is not delivering.
This is not about the nostalgia of Captain Mainwaring or Walmington-on-Sea; it is about what is needed today. Face-to-face banking for business and personal customers matters, service matters, and bank branches matter and can be alongside the post office. If we put the public good first, we can be successful. The voluntary approach has not worked, and the only organisation that can ensure our banking system delivers is Government. It is time to act.

John Glen: I commend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) on securing this debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. We have had a lively debate with 16 Back-Bench contributions, and it has rightly aroused a lot of passion. It is the third such debate in the four weeks that I have been in post—two of them in Westminster Hall—and the banks will need to respond to what they have heard. From Strangford to Selkirk, from Newton Aycliffe to Sandwich, from Bradford on Avon to Bungay, we have heard the case made for banks to remain open, and in my constituency I will be meeting representatives from Lloyds bank tomorrow to discuss the closure of Wilton bank, which is scheduled for 19 March this year.
This is a very important issue, and I listened carefully to the observations from Members across the House on what the Government should do. They ranged from my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who, characteristically, was very reticent to see Government get involved, to the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) who, in a  measured speech, held out the prospect of significant intervention from Government. I believe there is a role for Government in dealing with this issue, and I will talk about the Government’s actions to support those who require over-the-counter banking services and the Government’s commitment to widespread free access to cash.
I want to address the banking standard, too; I noted the observations of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about her perception of the inadequacy of the banking standard and I want to address that, as well as the concerns raised about the way that the banking services available at the post office work. I will also address the UK ATM operator LINK’s financial inclusion programme.
As Economic Secretary, I want financial services that deliver for all customers up and down this country, from Salisbury high street to the farthest reaches of the Hebrides. None the less, all hon. Members will appreciate that banking, like so many other industries, needs to respond to changing customer behaviour, which we have heard depicted by many Members in our debate. Change, which in this case is driven by the unrivalled speed of innovation in the financial services sector, is not easy to remedy. How many of us in this House regularly use our local branch, and how many of us, like me and others, manage our finances online or via our mobile phones? Ultimately, what I have repeatedly made clear in this place in the four weeks that I have been in post is that the management decisions of banks are made without intervention from Government.
I hear the call from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) to intervene but, given that the Scottish Government own Prestwick completely, it is somewhat odd to be told by the Scottish Government spokesperson that Ministers have no role in the operation of contractual agreements made by the airport. It is really important that we acknowledge that inconsistency and that the Government act through the regulator, and that is not a static dialogue. I have already spoken extensively to the head of the Financial Conduct Authority, and more can be done.
The Government firmly believe that these firms have a responsibility to minimise the impact of closures on communities wherever possible, which is why I am pleased to address the motion today. The Government already support a range of measures to protect access to banking services in local communities across the UK, but we must acknowledge the change that has happened. Branch footfall is falling year on year—it is down by a third since 2011, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) noted—and the number of banking app transactions has risen massively, to 932 million in 2016, which is an increase of 57% on the previous year. The Government cannot resist that; the question is what we can do with the tools available.
The access to banking standard commits all major high street banks to a series of outcomes when they decide to close a branch. There are three principal obligations. First, banks will give customers at least three months’ notice of closure. I note the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham to extend that period. They have a responsibility as soon as operationally ready, and I note that RBS gave six months’ notice. Secondly, banks will work with customers after the announcement has been made to ensure that they  know how and where they can continue to bank. Thirdly—this is vital—banks are required to identify vulnerable customers and ensure that they receive all the help they need. That could mean helping customers get online for the first time, or it could mean showing them the facilities at the local post office, or ensuring that they have access to a mobile branch, a telephone banking service or a local, free-to-use ATM. Obviously, every bank will take a different approach, but the principle of the standard is that the outcome for customers will be the same.
As of July 2017, the Lending Standards Board has had responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the standard. I say to the right hon. Member for Don Valley that the board does have the power to cancel or suspend a registered firm’s registration and give directions on future conduct, but I will look carefully at her remarks and consider whether anything could be done to strengthen the measures further. This independent oversight is a welcome and important addition to the way the standard works.
Turning to the ATM network and post offices, I acknowledge that the Government have made great strides in bolstering the over-the-counter banking services available at post offices, and an extra £370 million to support that work was announced in December. UK banks and building societies reached a new commercial agreement with the Post Office that has set the standard for the banking services available in post offices, ensuring a uniform level across the 11,600 branches. Those services can include the ability to check a balance, to withdraw and deposit cash using a debit card, to use chip and pin or pre-printed paying-in slips, and to deposit cheques. There is an ad hoc cash deposit limit of £2,000, but the Post Office estimates that that covers 95% of all transactions.
We should not forget that 99.7% of people in this country now live within three miles of their local post office, and 93% live within a mile. At the autumn Budget 2017 my predecessor wrote to the Post Office and UK Finance and asked them to consider how they could fulfil the aims they have set out.

Margot James: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) for securing this debate and for his extremely well-informed speech, from which I learned a great deal and which I shall read again after the debate. He has clearly been involved in this issue for a long time and has outstanding knowledge of the problems. This debate gives me the opportunity to update the House on the Government’s plans and progress towards ensuring universal high-speed broadband.
Broadband connectivity is crucial, even more so in rural communities throughout the UK than in our urban centres. The Government and local partners are investing £1.7 billion in the superfast broadband programme. The programme has provided superfast coverage with speeds of more than 24 megabits per second for more than 4.75 million premises in areas that otherwise would not have been covered by a commercially funded roll-out. Some 95% of homes and businesses in the UK can now access superfast broadband, up from 45% in 2010. As a result of efficiency savings in the initial roll-out, at least £210 million of funding will be available to support further investment. Because of the high levels of take-up, we will also have gainshare funding from the additional profits from the network, projected to reach at least £527 million. That means that a total of £737 million will be available to support further roll-out.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire will recognise that improvements have been achieved in his constituency over the past few years, and he quoted some figures. Since the beginning  of last year, superfast coverage in his constituency has increased from 71% to 84%, while 92% of premises have speeds of 10 Mbps or above. The Connected Counties project, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred, is delivering across both Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire, and has to date provided superfast broadband access to more than 71,000 premises that otherwise would have been left behind. That equates to more 96% superfast coverage across Hertfordshire. Additionally, 23,000 premises are still to be covered through the project’s current roll-out plans.
Beyond the scope of the Connected Counties project, Hertfordshire County Council is progressing the option of a new procurement exercise. I understand that the council has already undertaken an open market review to understand the latest commercial plans in the county. That is evidence of the council’s commitment to ensuring that areas are not left behind.
I recognise that the communities that have not yet got coverage—my right hon. and learned Friend referred to some of them—will feel left out. In the case of Hertfordshire, the local authority has managed the current delivery contract with BT to maximise coverage to as many premises as possible, as quickly as possible. That can sometimes leave gaps on the ground where some areas are covered and adjacent areas are not, as my right hon. and learned Friend outlined in his speech. However, the alternative would have been to prioritise some communities over others during the roll-out, which would have been less efficient and would have involved the local authority in making invidious choices to determine which communities should get covered first. In that context, the approach taken by Hertfordshire County Council seems reasonable. Broadband Delivery UK has managed the programme effectively. Very few major infrastructure projects achieve their delivery target on schedule and with so much funding being returned.
I recognise the need to ensure that new housing has superfast coverage. Openreach has committed that all new build developments with at least 30 properties will have fibre to the premises. That will ensure that almost all new housing has full fibre access. We are also continuing to focus very much on the remaining 5% of premises that do not yet have superfast access. Across the UK as a whole, we are confident that at least half the remaining premises will get that superfast coverage through the continued roll-out.
However, even with this further delivery, some premises will remain without the superfast broadband that they need. We are therefore working hard on our commitment to ensure universal high-speed broadband of at least 10 Mbps by 2020. We will shortly set out the design for a legal right to high-speed broadband in secondary legislation, alongside our detailed response to the consultation. Ofcom’s implementation is expected to take two years from when we lay secondary legislation, meeting the Government’s commitment of giving everyone access to high-speed broadband by 2020.
In the meantime, the Better Broadband Scheme is available for any home or business with speeds below 2 Mbps. This provides a subsidy of up to £350 for any eligible premises for satellite broadband or, where available, other solutions including fixed 4G, fixed wireless, or community fibre projects. This scheme has now supported more than 13,000 homes and businesses.
Communities that currently do not have superfast broadband can also consider the option of undertaking their own community project. Community projects can either be completely self-managed and delivered, or can involve communities co-funding with providers such as BT, via the community fibre partnerships scheme. Our focus until now has been on extending superfast broadband coverage, but we also need to move to ensure a transformation in the UK’s digital infrastructure, so that it is based on fibre, or full fibre, to the premises. Currently, only 3% of premises have a fibre optic connection. We accept that that is not good enough. We have a target of at least 10 million premises having a full fibre connection by 2022. Recent industry announcements show that that is achievable.
In answer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s question, I have met Clive Selley, the chief executive of BT Openreach. When I next meet him, I will raise with him the debacle that my right hon. and learned Friend described when residents turned down the offer from Gigaclear on the basis that BT Openreach was apparently going to deliver on their needs in a timely manner, only for them to be let down. I do take that to heart; the residents must be deeply frustrated and upset by that, and I will raise it with Mr Selley when I next meet him.
Virgin Media, KCOM, Hyperoptic, Gigaclear and others all have plans for significant new fibre coverage. Last week, Openreach announced its plan to reach 3 million premises by 2020 and its proposals to get to 10 million by 2025 if the conditions are right. I was very pleased to hear today the TalkTalk announcement that it will reduce its dividend in order to connect 3 million new premises with full fibre. I congratulate the board of TalkTalk on that decision.
The Government have a number of measures to support full fibre roll-out. The Government’s local full fibre networks programme has six wave 1 projects under way and bids for wave 2 were received on 26 January. We expect to announce the successful wave 2 projects in March and, in line with our manifesto commitment, we will also make full fibre connection vouchers available for companies across the country in 2018.
The digital infrastructure investment fund is now in place with Amber Fund Management Ltd and M&G Investments to provide £400 million of investment capital, alongside private capital, for new expanding providers of fibre broadband. Our barrier-busting taskforce is also now established and tackling the barriers to fibre roll-out across the UK. We are also introducing a five-year relief from business rates in England for new fibre infrastructure.
We are therefore making good progress in providing rural broadband coverage, but we recognise that we need to finish the job and it is our intention to do that fully. We will also be pushing hard on full fibre coverage. I welcome the continued interest and support from the Members of this House, and their expertise—particularly that of my right hon. and learned Friend—as I continue to drive this work and ensure that we deliver against our goals.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.